In Solemn truth, do not seven persons share most of the responsibility for establishing the Communist grip on the world? Are not the seven:
(1) Marx, the founder of violent Communism;
(2) Engels, the promoter of Marx;
(3, 4, 5) Trotsky, Lenin, and Stalin;
(6) Franklin D. Roosevelt, who rescued the tottering communist empire by recognition (1933), by the resultant financial support, by his refusal to proceed against Communists in the United States, and by the provisions of the Yalta Conference; and…
(7) Harry S. Truman, who agreed at Potsdam to the destruction of Germany and thereafter followed the Franklin Roosevelt policy of refusing to act against
Communists in the United States, the one strong nation which remains as a possible obstacle to Communist world power?
In spite of the consolidation of Stalin‘s position in Russia by Franklin Roosevelt and by Stalin‘s liquidation of millions of anti-Communists in Russia after Roosevelt‘s recognition, the Soviet Union in 1937 was stymied in its announced program of world conquest by two road-blocks: Japan in the East and Germany in the West. These countries, the former the size of California and the latter the size of Texas, were small for great powers, and since their main fears were of the enormous, hostile, and nearby Soviet Union, they did not constitute an actual danger to the United States. The men around Roosevelt, many of them later around Truman, not merely defeated but destroyed the two road-blocks against the spread of Stalinist Communism! Again we come to the question: Should the United States continue to use the men whose stupidity or treason built the Soviet Union into the one great land power of the world?
In continuing to employ people who were in office during the tragic decisions of Tehran, Yalta, and Potsdam, are we not exactly as sensible as a hypothetical couple who employ the same baby sitter who has already killed three of their children?
By What Faith, Then, Can We Find Hope in Those Whose Past Judgments So Grievously Erred? asked Senator Ecton of Montana on September &, 1951. Can We Trust the Future to Those Who Betrayed the Past? asked Senator Jenner of Indiana in a speech in the Senate of the United States on September 19, 1950. Whatever the cause of our State Department‘s performances, so tragic for America, in 1945 and thereafter (see also Chapter VI, above), the answer to Senator Jenner‘s point blank question is an incontrovertible ―No.
Congressmen, the patriotic elements in the press, and the letter-writing public should continually warn the President, however, that a mere shuffling around of the save old cast of Yalta actors and others Whose past judgments so grievously erred will not be sufficient. We must not again have tolerators of extreme leftism, such as Mr. John J. McCloy, who was Assistant Secretary of War from April, 1941, to November, 1945, and Major General Clayton Bissell, who was A.C. of S.G.-2, i.e., the Army‘s Chief of Intelligence, from Feb. 5, 1944, to the end of the war (Who‘s Who in America, 1950-1951, pp. 1798 and 232). In February, 1945, these high officials were questioned by a five-man committee created by the new 79 th Congress to in-
vestigate charges of communism in the War Department.
In the New york Times of February 28 (article by Lewis Wood), Mr. McCloy is quoted as follows:
The facts point to the difficulties of legal theory which are involved in taking the position that mere membership in the Communist party, present or past should exclude a person from the army or a commission. But beyond any questions of legal theory, a study of the question and our experience convinced me that we were not on sound ground in our investigation when we placed emphasis solely on Communist affiliation.
According to some newspapers, Mr. McCloy‘s testimony gave the impression that he did not care if 49% of a man‘s loyalty was elsewhere provided he was 51% American. The validity of Christ‘s No man can serve two masters was widely recalled to mind. Edward N. Scheiberling, National Commander of the American Legion, referring to Assistant Secretary of War McCloy‘s testimony, stated (New York Times,) March 2, 1945): That the Assistant Secretary had testified that the new policy of the armed forces would admit to officer rank persons 49 percent loyal to an alien power, and only 51 percent loyal to the United States.
The Legion head asserted further:
Fifty-one percent loyalty is not enough when the security of our country is at stake. . . The lives of our sons, the vital military secrets of our armed forces must not be entrusted to men of divided loyalty. The Washington Times-Herald took up the cudgels against Mr. McCloy and he was shifted to the World Bank and thence to the post of High Commissioner of Germany (Chapter VI, above). With sufficient documentation to appear convincing, The Freeman as late as August 27, 1951, stated that Mr. McCloy seems to be getting and accepting a kind of advice that borders on mental disorder.
General Bissell was moved from A.C. of S., G-2 to U.S. Military Attache at London. He received, a little later, a bon voyage present of a laudatory feature article in the Communist Daily Worker. Below the accompanying portrait (Daily Worker, June 20, 1947) was the legend Maj. Gen. Clayton Bissell, wartime head of the U.S. Army Intelligence Corps, who defended Communist soldiers from the attacks of Washington seat warmers during the war.
What of the Congressional Committee? Though it had been created and ordered to work by a coalition of patriotic Republicans and Southern Democratic majority in the house chose members to its left-of center liking, and the committee (Chairman: Mr. Thomason of Texas!) by a strict party vote of 3-2 expressed itself as satisfied with the testimony of McCloy and Bissell.
Surely the American public wants no high officials tolerant of Communists or thanked by Communists for favors rendered.
Surely Americans will not longer be fooled by another shuffling of the soiled New Deal deck with its red aces, deuces, knaves, and jokers. This time we will not be blinded by a spurious bipartisan appointment of Achesonites whose nominal membership in the Republican Party does not conceal an ardent me-too-ism. Americans surely will not, for instance, tolerate actors like tweedle-dee Acheson right down the line even to such an act as inviting Hiss to New York to become President of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, of which Dulles was the new Chairman of the Board. It might have been expected that with Hiss away, his trouble in Washington would blow over, but it did not.
The reference to high-placed War Department officials whose loyalty or judgment has been questioned by some of their fellow Americans brings us to an evaluation of the reception given in all parts of this nation to General MacArthur after his dismissal by President Truman in April, 1951. It seems that General MacArthur‘s ovation was due not to his five stars, for half a dozen generals and admirals have similar rank, but to his being a man of unquestioned integrity, unquestioned patriotism, and, above all, to his being avowedly a Christian.
Long before the spring crisis of 1951 General MacArthur was again and again featured in the obscure religious papers of many Christian denominations as a man who asked for more Christian missionaries for Japan and for New Testaments to give his soldiers. MacArthur‘s devout Christianity was jeered in some quarters but it made a lasting impression on that silent majority of Americans who have been deeply wounded by the venality and treason of men in high places.
I was privileged in Tokyo, wrote John Gunther in The Riddle of MacArthur, to read through the whole file of MacArthur‘s communications and pronouncements since the occupation began, and many of these touch, at least indirectly, on religious themes. He Constantly associates Christianity with both democracy and patriotism.
MacArthur is a Protestant, but to the editor of the Brooklyn Tablet, a Catholic periodical, he wrote as follows:
Through daily contact with our American men and women who are here engaged in the reshaping of Japan‟s future, there are penetrating into the Japanese mind the noble influences which find their origin and their inspiration in the American home. These influences are rapidly bearing fruit, and apart from the great numbers who are coming formally to embrace the Christian faith, a whole population is coming to understand, practice and cherish its underlying principals and ideals.
To some people this language of General MacArthur‘s may seem outmoded or antiquarian. The writings of the more publicized American theologians, darlings of leftist book-reviews, may indicate that the clear water of classical Christianity is drying up in a desert of experimental sociology, psychiatry, and institutionalized ethical culture. But such is not the case. The heart of America is still Christian in its felt need of redemption and salvation as well as in its fervent belief in the Resurrection.
Christianity in the historical, or classical, sense is closely allied with the founding and growth of America.
Et was the common adherence to some form of Christianity which made it possible to develop some degree of national unity out of the heterogeneous nationalities represented among the colonists of early America (The Immigration and Naturalization Systems of the United States, p. 231). This acceptance of the tenets of Christianity as the bases of our American society gave our people a body of the basis of our American society gave our people a body of shared ideals, a universally accepted code of conduct.
Firmly rooted in Christianity was our conception of honor, both personal and national. It was not until a domimant number of powerful preachers and church executives got tired of the church‘s foundation-stone, charity, and abandoned it to welfare agencies, it was not until these same leaders transferred their loyalty from the risen Christ to a new sort of leftist cult stemming from national councils and conferences, that public morality declined to its present state in America. But the people in the leftist-infiltrated churches have by no means strayed as far as their leaders from the mainstream of Christianity. The really Christian people in all denominations wish to see restored in America the set of values, the pattern of conduct, the
code of honor, which constitute and unify Western civilization and which once made ours a great and united country. It was precisely to this starved sense of spiritual unity, this desire to recover a lost spiritual heritage, that MacArthur the Christian made an unconscious appeal which burst forth into an enthusiasm never before seen in our country.
And so, when the Augean stables of our government are cleaned out, we must, in the words of George Washington, put only Americans on guard. We must have as secretaries of State and Defense men who will go down through their list of assistant secretaries, counsellors. division chiefs, and so on, and remove all persons under any suspicion of Communism whether by ideological expression, association, or what not. While danger stalks the world, we should entrust the destiny of our beloved country to those and only those who can say with no reservation:
This Is My Own, My Native Land!